Previous Page [Digital South Asia Library] Next Page

Schwartzberg Atlas, v. , p. 189.

Switch to image view

and K&rtod;&stod;&ntod;a III in 939 and 963. The major significance of these raids has already been outlined in the previous discussion. De- spite sustained Gurjara-Pratihāra resistance, the Rā&stod;&ttod;rakū&ttod;as normally retained Lā&ttod;a (Southern Gujarat) and maintained political influence over the Kalacuris, who played a significant role on the side of the Rā&stod;&ttod;rakū&ttod;as. Avanti changed hands sev- eral times but does not appear to have been held by the Rā&stod;&ttod;ra- kū&ttod;as for any considerable period.

The northern expeditions not only failed to obtain for the Rā&stod;&ttod;rakū&ttod;as the hegemony they sought, but even strained their ability to dominate the far South, where Govinda III had firmly established their power. K&rtod;&stod;&ntod;a III was able, however, to achieve a long occupation of the central Tamil plain after defeating the Co&lline;a heirs to the Pallavas in A.D. 965.

Like the rest of India, South India had many warrior lin- eages who proclaimed their kingly credentials and accomplish- ments in inscriptions composed in Sanskrit, and by the 8th century in Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada as well. The three an- cient kingdoms of the Tamils continued to exist: Ceras in Kerala, Pā&ntod;&dtod;yas in the Vaigai Basin, and Co&lline;as in the Kaveri. But in the 8th and 9th centuries the great regional kingdom was that of the Pallavas of Kāñcī, under whom the institution of dharmic Hindu kingship was brought to full maturity in South India.

Three long reigns cover one hundred and fifty years of Pal- lava dominance in the south: Narasi&mtod;havarman II, better known by his title Rājasi&mtod;ha, from about A.D. 690 to 729; Nandivarman II, or Pallavamalla, from 731 to 796; and Danti- varman, from 796 to 846. Under all three, much royal support was given to Sanskrit learning and to Brahman institutions as well as to Hindu gods, principally Śiva. The great chiefs of the time imitated their kings in these activities. These Pallavas also maintained diplomatic contact with the Chinese and were ac- tive in cultural contacts with peninsular Southeast Asia.

Dantivarman's reign witnessed the end of the Pallava over- lordship. The Pā&ntod;&dtod;yas, under the energetic Ne&dtod;uñja&dtod;aiyan (d. A.D. 815) and his successors, especially Śrīmā&rline;a Śrīvallabha (815–62), displaced Pallava hegemony over the far South and Sri Lanka. The ancient Co&lline;a kingship of the Kaveri was re- vived by Vijayālaya and successfully challenged Pallava con- trol there. In addition, the Rā&stod;&ttod;rakū&ttod;as under Govinda III humbled the Pallavas in 803 and retained a presence in the central Tamil plain until Govinda's death in 814. In the late 9th century and for most of the 10th century, the crucial con- test for overlordship in the southern peninsula was between the Pā&ntod;&dtod;yas, often in alliance with the Lambaka&ntod;&ntod;as of Sri Lanka, and the Co&lline;as. Ultimately, it was the latter who emerged triumphant under Rājarāja the Great (985–1012).

Between the Pallava and the Pāla domains were the king- doms of the Eastern Cālukyas, Kali&ndot;ga, Utkala, and others. The Eastern Cālukyas of Ve&ndot;gi alternated between indepen- dence and vassalage to the Rā&stod;&ttod;rakū&ttod;as. The other states, though submitting to their powerful neighbor when invaded, otherwise remained largely independent. In Kali&ndot;ga, the East- ern Ga&ndot;gas rose to prominence in the 11th century. Utkala was conquered by the Somava&mtod;śis of Dak&stod;i&ntod;a Kośala in the second half of the 10th century.

In the far northeast the kingdom of Kāmarūpa remained little affected by the power struggles of the period, though it did expand briefly to Va&ndot;ga and Magadha early in the 8th cen- tury and again briefly into Bengal late in the 9th.

Sources (in addition to those in the General Bibliography)

Epigraphy and Numismatics

D. R. Bhandarkar (1927–36); Bhavnagar, India (State)... (1894); A. Cunningham (1894a); V. R. R. Dikshitar (1952); D. B. Diskalkar (1941); A. S. Gadre (1943); Hira Lal (1932); C. R. Krishnamacharlu (1940); N. G. Majumdar (1929); V. V. Mirashi (1955); E. Müller (1883); R. Mukherji and S. K. Maity (1967); P. C. Nahar (1918–29); R. S. Panchamukhi (1941, 1951); Pudukkottai, India (State) (1929); N. Ramesan (1962); V. Rangacharya (1919); R. Sewell (1932); D. Sircar (1965a); South Indian Inscriptions (1890–); P. Sreenivasachar and P. B. Desai (1961); T. N. Subrahmanyan (1953–55).

Other Primary Sources

`Alī ibn Hāmid; al-Balādhurī; al-Bīrūnī (2); Cūlava&mtod;sa; Dham- makitti; H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, eds. (1867–77); Firishtah (b and d); Halāyudha Bha&ttod;&ttod;a; Jinasena II; Kalha&ntod;a (a and b); Kāmandaki; K&stod;emīśvara; al-Ma'sūdī; Mayūrapāda Thera; Minhāj Sirāj Jūzjānī; Rajaśekhara (1, 2, 3, and 4); Rājavaliya; Somadeva Bha&ttod;&ttod;a; Somadeva Sūri; Tārānātha; al`Utbī; Vākpati (b).

Other Works

N. Ahmad (1965); S. M. Z. Alavi (1965); A. S. Altekar (1926), (1967); B. Aoki (1955); T. W. Arnold (1924); M. Arokiaswami (1956); R. D. Banerji (1915), (1931); V. V. Bartol'd (1958); K. L. Barua (1933); R. Basak (1934); A. L. Basham (1964); R. G. Bhandarkar (1957); C. E. Bosworth (1968); G. C. Choudhary (1964); P. C. Choudhury (1966); A. M. Chowdhury (1967); J. F. Fleet (1882); R. N. Frye, ed. (1975); D. C. Ganguly (1933), (1937); H. A. R. Gibb (1921/23), (1923); H. Goetz (1969); L. Gopal (1965); R. Gopalan (1928); M. S. Govindasamy (1965); W. Haig, ed. (1928); H. Heras (1933b); P. K. Hitti (1956); S. Hodivala (1939, 1957); G. F. Hourani (1951); J. Hutchinson and J. P. Vogel (1933); J. P. Jain (1964); V. Janaki (1969); M. V. Krishna Rao (1936); G. Le Strange (1930); S. Lévi (1905–8); B. Lewis (1950); T. V. Mahalingam (1952), (1955), (1969b); M. R. Majmudar, ed. (1960); R. C. Majumdar (1923), (1931); G. C. Mendis (1948b); C. Minakshi (1938); V. V. Mirashi (1960–66); V. B. Mishra (1966); Y. Mishra (1972); R. Mitra (1875, 1880); G. M. Moraes (1931); W. Muir (1915); S. Mulay (1972); K. M. Munshi (1955); C. S. Navaratnam (1958); C. W. Nicholas and S. Paranavitana (1961); K. A. A. Nilakanta Sastri (1929), (1955), (1966); K. A. A. Nilakanta Sastri, ed. (1939); P. Niyogi (1962); G. H. Ojha (1936–37); D. B. Pandey (1973); L. Petech (1958); B. N. Puri (1957); I. H. Qureshi (1962); P. K. S. Raja (1966); H. G. Raverty (1885); H. C. Ray (1931, 1936); H. C. Ray, ed. (1959, 1960); S. C. Ray (1970); D. R. Regmi (1969); B. L. Rice (1909); N. K. Sahu, ed. (1956); B. A. Saletore (1936–. 1960); H. D. Sankalia (1949); B. Sen (1942); R. Sewell, comp. (1882); D. Sharma (1959a), (1961), (1963); R. S. Sharma (1965); B. P. Sinha (1954); D. Sircar (1971a), (1971b), (1974); V. A. Smith (1924); A. Sreedhara Menon (1967); M. A. Stein (1899); K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyer (1917, 1967); P. M. Sykes (1940), (1951); U. Thakur (1956); R. S. Tripathi (1937); G. Tucci (1962); P. B. Udgaonkar (1969); V. Upadhyay (1964); C. V. Vaidya (1921–24); B. Venkatakrishna Rao (1973); N. Venkata Ramanayya (1950); B. C. Verma (1962); K. J. Virji (1955); J. P. Vogel (1911); H. H. Wilson (1928).

IV.2. South Asia in the Age of the Ghaznavids, Cāhamānas, Later Cālukyas, and Co&lline;as, c. 975–1200

The collapse of the Rā&stod;&ttod;rakū&ttod;as in the Deccan and the Pal- lavas in the far South did not result in the breakdown of the imperial polity in those areas, since the Cālukyas of Kalyā&ntod;i and the Co<od;as of Tañjavūr replaced them; but the disintegration of the Gurjara-Pratihāra Empire led to the emergence of a number of regional and local powers in North India. These northern powers were distinguished by their efforts to consoli- date their dynastic identities and their strife for paramount status rather than by their ability to create large, durable states or a stable regional balance of power. None adequately recog- nized external threats to their fragile political fabric. For most Hindu kingdoms the Muslim Turkic warriors (known as turuk&stod;as or mlecchas who were gathering strength to their west seemed worthy of far less concern than their immediate enemies, and they continued to engage in military activities according to the patterns of the preceding centuries. Kānyakubja retained its imperial aura, though other more powerful political cores had developed and new power centers rapidly increased in number.

The establishment of a new kingdom at Ghaznī by the Samānid general Alptigīn in 962–63 provides an instance of the frequent reprecussions on India of the political turmoil of Central Asia. The nascent Ghaznavid power maintained its precarious existence in a hostile environment created by the resistance of the chiefs of Zābulistān and the attempts of the Hindu Śāhīs of Kābul and Udabā&ntod;&dtod;a (Waihind) to reinstate the Lawīks, the former rulers of Ghaznī, to their ancestral throne. The Ghaznavids survived with Samānid military sup- port from Bukhārā and in turn acknowledged Samānid suze- rainty. The situation changed, however, with the accession of Sabuktigīn in c. 977. Consolidating his power in Zābulistān, Sabuktigīn launched offensives against the Hindu Śāhīs, seek- ing thereby the material resources needed to raise his dynasty to prominence in eastern Iran and also trying to render aggres- sive service to Islam. Overcoming stubborn Śāhī resistance. Sabuktigīn succeeded in expanding his kingdom into the Kābul- Lamghān region in 986–87. He also secured for himself large areas to the north and west, including Balkh, Herāt, and Khu- rāsān. Within two years of the accession of his son Mahmūd in 997–98, the power of the Samānids collapsed. Mahmūd was thereby able to incorporate their territories south of the Oxus into his kingdom. The caliph legitimized Mahmūd's new posi- tion by conferring on him the honorific title "Yāmīn al-Daula" (Right Hand of the State, whence is derived the dynastic name Yāmīnī).

During his reign of thirty-two years Mahmūd extended his empire from Azerbaijan and Kurdistan in the west to the Indo- Gangetic interfluve in the east and from Khwārazm in the north to the Arabian Sea. His Indian campaigns loom large because of his insatiable plundering of the enormous wealth of Hindu capitals and temple cities as well as his annexation of the Śāhī domains, Indian plunder financed imperial expan- sion in the west and made the Ghaznavids a major Islamic power. Conquest of the Kābul region and the Punjab from the Śāhīs was needed to secure Mahmūd's rear during his raids deep into the Ganga Plain and central India. Though the Śāhīs in their stubborn resistance to Mahmūd were aided at times (allegedly in 1001 and 1008) by other Hindu rulers, such as those of Indraprastha (Delhi), Ajayameru (Ajmer), Kālañ- jara, and Ujjayinī (Ujjain), they fell in 1018. In that year Mahmūd sacked Mathurā and Kānyakubja, and in three fol- lowing expeditions, in 1019. 1020–21, and 1025, he fought with the Candellas at the head of a confederacy of Hindu kings, besieged Kālañjara, and sacked and looted the cities of north- ern India and the temple city of Somanātha. During his expe- ditions, seventeen in all, Mahmūd marched over most of the historic invasion routes leading into the western Ganga Plain. Rajasthan, Sind, and Gujarat. He exposed the vulnerability of regional and local defenses and thereby spurred the strength- ening of the military position of the frontier kingdoms, espe- cially the Caulukyas and Cāhamānas, who served as bulwarks against the Muslim invasions until their fall.

The fortunes of the Ghaznavids declined dramatically after 1038, when their former vassals the Saljūqs achieved indepen- dence. Expanding rapidly at the expense of their erstwhile masters, the Saljūqs even subordinated them from 1118 to 1152. Bitter hostilities with the rising Ghūrids culminated in the sack of Ghaznī in 1151 and the expulsion of the Ghaz- navids to the Punjab in 1157, where they were finally uprooted by Muhammad Ghūrī in 1186.

The Hindu Śāhīs were the dominant power south of the Hindu Kush in c. 975. Like their predecessors the Turkī Śāhīs, they held back the Islamic tide from the fertile plains of the Punjab, which they themselves annexed in c. 999, the very year when Mahmūd acquired the Samānid provinces south of the Oxus. In their protracted and heroic struggle against the Ghaznavids, the Śāhīs suffered repeated defeats. Though they lost the Punjab in 1018, their resistance continued for some years more. Śāhī strongholds extended to eastern Punjab and the adjoining hills, where Mahmūd seized much of their trea- sure kept in the fortress of Nagarako&ttod;a. Eastern Punjab was only briefly controlled by the Ghaznavids in the reign of Mah- mūd's successor, Mas`ūd. The Hindu kings continued to resist further Ghaznavid expansion, but none before the rise of the Cāhamāna Vigraharāja IV succeeded in building a strong defense.

Mahmūd's invasions of the Ganga Plain occurred at a time of confused political conditions in northern India. The Gurjara- Pratihāras (see text for plate IV.1), though still regarded as the imperial dynasty, lacked power either to organize a con- federacy to oppose the Ghaznavids or to make an honorable stand in defense of their dwindling power and prestige. In fact, the cowardly conduct of their king Rājyapāla at the time of Mahmūd's sack of their capital, Kānyakubja, offended the sense of honor of erstwhile Gurjara-Pratihāra feudatories, who, under the leadership of the Candella king Vidhyādhara, attacked Rājyapāla and killed him in battle. After 1019 the Gurjara-Pratihāras survived only in a small region around Prayāga. The strategic and political importance of Kānya- kubja continued, however, and its prestige was later revived by the Gāha&dtod;avālas.

In the aftermath of Mahmūd's invasions, the Candellas com- peted for dominance of the Ganga Plain and areas between the Yamuna and Narmada Rivers. They fought many wars with the Pālas, Kalacuris, Paramāras, Cāhamānas, and Gāha&dtod;a- vālas, and their powers waxed and waned, depending on the abilities of their rulers and the strength of their adversaries. Kings Dha&ndot;ga, Ganda, and Vidhyādhara successfully ex- panded Candella power in the Ganga Plain early in the 11th century. Some later kings such as Madanavarman (1129–63) were powerful rulers, but conflicts with the Kalacuris and Paramāras eventually weakened the Candellas. However, de- spite periods of great distress owing to Muslim invasions and the early loss of Gopādrī (Gwalior) to them, they maintained their independence till 1309, after which time vestiges of the once glorious Candella power lingered on only in small, iso- lated forts, Plate IV.2, map (b) portrays areas over which Candella military expeditions were carried out; but it should be emphasized that control of these areas was temporary and tenuous, firm Candella control being limited to their core area and adjacent territories. In large areas of the Ganga-Yamuna Doab their hold was maintained well into the mid-12th century despite intervals of Kalacuri and Paramāra supremacy. The Gāha&dtod;avālas finally ousted the Candellas from the Doab by successfully invading their core area south of the Yamuna.

Rivaling the Candellas in power were the Paramāras of Malwa, who struggled to dominate western India. The Para- māras precipitated the fall of the Rā&stod;&ttod;rakū&ttod;as (see text for plate IV. 1) by defeating their forces and plundering their capital, Mānyakhe&ttod;a, in 972. They claimed territories south to the Godavari and sought suzerainty over the Caulukyas, Guhilas, Cāhamānas, and Kalacuris during the reigns of Vakpati II and Bhoja. Bhoja also bid for paramountcy in northern India and achieved temporary success. He fought not only with his neighbors, but also with the Ghaznavids and apparently aided the Śāhīs in their struggle with Mahmūd. With Bhoja's death during the siege of his capital, Ujjayinī, by the confederate forces of the Kalacuris, Cālukyas of Kalyā&ntod;ī, and Caulukyas, the ascendancy of the Paramāras ended, but they remained a regional power until conquered by the Khaljīs

Previous Page To Table of Contents Next Page

Back to Schwartzberg Atlas | Back to the DSAL Page

This page was last generated on Monday 18 February 2013 at 16:26 by
The URL of this page is: